Anda di halaman 1dari 1

SPOUSES DOMINGO and LOURDES PAGUYO, Petitioners,

vs.
Pierre astorga and St. Andrew Realty, Inc., Respondent.
FACTS: Herein petitioners, Spouses Domingo Paguyo and Lourdes Paguyo, were the owners of a small five-storey building
known as the Paguyo Building constructed on a land belonging to the Armas family.
5

In order for the petitioners to complete their title and ownership over the lot in question, there was an urgent need to make
complete payment to the Armas family, which at that time stood at P917,470.00 considering that petitioners had previously
made partial payments to the Armases.
Petitioner Lourdes Paguyo entered into an agreement captioned as Receipt of Earnest Money with respondent Pierre Astorga,
for the sale of the formers property consisting of the lot which was to be purchased from the Armases, together with the
improvements thereon, particularly, the existing building. The agreed total price of the property (lot and building) is
P7,000,000.
Respondents agreed to petitioner Lourdes Paguyos proposal to buy the building first.
10
Simultaneously with the signing of the
documents on the sale of the building, respondents paid petitioners the additional amount of P500,000.00 and agreed to
advance the P917,470.00 needed by the petitioner in obtaining the lot, which should be deducted to the 7M price of the
property. Respondents renamed the Building and registered the same at the Assessors Office after paying accrued real estate
taxes with the knowledge of the petitioner.
After investigation, however, respondents learned that petitioners were not in the position to deliver the land, all the rights
and interest thereof. Petitioner constrained to order "stop payment" of the P917,470.00.
Pursuant to their agreement ,
13
respondent company filed an ejectment case and obtained a favorable decision against
petitioners in the MTC of Makati and affirmed by CA. Accordingly, respondents continued to exercise acts of full ownership,
possession and use over the building.
14

Petitioners filed a Complaint for the rescission of the Receipt of Earnest Money
15
with the undertaking to return the sum
of P763,890.50. They also sought the rescission of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage,
16
the Mutual Undertaking, the Deed of
Absolute Sale of Building,
17
and the Deed of Assignment of Rights and Interest.
18

RTC ruled in favor of respondents and CA affirmed the RTC decission in toto.
ISSUES: Whether or not the petitioner was disadvantaged on the consequence of the contract and therefore the court must
be vigilant for his protection.
RULINGS:
Here, petitioner Lourdes Paguyo, being not only cultured but a person with great business acumen as well, cannot claim to be
the weaker or disadvantaged party in the subject contract so as to call for a strict interpretation against respondents. More
importantly, the parties herein went through a series of negotiations before the documents were signed and executed.
34

Further, we find the stipulations in the subject documents plain and unambiguous. Inasmuch as the stipulations in the
aforesaid contract and in the other contracts being questioned leave no room for interpretation, there was no cause for
applying Article 24 of the New Civil Code.
This Court, will not allow itself to be an instrument to the dissolution of contract validly entered into. A party should not, after
its opportunity to enjoy the benefits of an agreement, be allowed to later disown the arrangement when the terms thereof
ultimately would prove to operate against its hopeful expectations.
36

WHEREFORE, the Decision and the Resolution dated 30 April 1997 and 12 September 1997, respectively, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47034, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the amount of damages and attorneys fees
recoverable. SO ORDER.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai